Fort Lauderdale Special Magistrate grants short extensions and imposes fines across dozens of code cases

Fort Lauderdale’s Special Magistrate heard an array of code-compliance cases on June 25, 2026, granting short extensions in many matters while imposing fines or findings of fact where properties remained out of compliance.

The hearing opened with Inspector Matthew Flesher presenting case CE2560029 for 2901 Southwest 17th Street. Property owner David Vasquez told the court, “I'm David Vasquez. I'm the property owner,” and said the property has been largely cleared and staff were awaiting removal of residual online listings. Magistrate granted a 10-day extension to allow verification of the removals and said the case would be closed if compliance is shown within that period.

Senior Inspector Bernstein Samberg presented several connected cases involving tree damage on South Andrews Avenue where nine live oaks and multiple palms had been “effectively destroyed,” per the city’s reading of the arborist reports. City staff asked for replacement plans and permits; urban forester Laura Tulie told the magistrate she did not expect the owner’s arborist to change the initial assessment that the trees were irreparably harmed. The magistrate ordered an order-to-reappear and set a 63-day compliance window for the replacement/permit work.

Several property owners and managers sought additional time citing contractor schedules, permit backlogs or personal hardship. For example, in case CE25060123 (424 NW 14th Ave), attorney and owner representatives asked for time to secure permits; the magistrate extended the compliance schedule and suspended fines for 119 days to allow work and permit processes to proceed.

The hearing also addressed vacation-rental violations. For properties found advertising without proper certificates, the magistrate issued findings of fact or short compliance windows. In multiple instances the city requested immediate fines of up to $1,000 per day if online listings were not removed within 15 days.

Not every request for a longer extension was granted. Where the city’s regulations limited time on temporary storage units (pods) or required engineers’ approvals for gravel/landscape solutions, the magistrate generally sided with the city’s standard deadlines (commonly 28 to 63 days) while warning that fines would resume if compliance was not achieved.

The magistrate imposed several accrued fines where the record showed repeated noncompliance and accepted administrative-cost requests in multiple matters. Larger accrued fine figures were corrected and entered on the record when calculation discrepancies were noted.

The hearing concluded with orders to reappear in multiple matters, compliance deadlines ranging from 10 to 119 days depending on the violation and the granting of findings of fact in numerous repeat or vacation-rental cases. The magistrate repeatedly emphasized that paying a citation without contest is treated as an admission that the violation occurred and that the hearing’s role was to set remedies and deadlines rather than re-litigate prior findings.

What happens next: property owners who receive orders to reappear will have the deadlines listed on their orders to cure the cited violations, or face fines and other enforcement steps if compliance is not achieved.